Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Certainly that is how a creationist perceives it.This is what's really behind the "controversy". Everything else is just smoke.
That's precisely one of the points I made to @nPeace ...if his position were rooted in a scientific disagreement, I would expect him to actually know the science quite well. That he clearly doesn't indicates that something else is behind it all.
Yep. Just in this thread I was accused of saying that creationists have no right to question scientists, or that no one has any right to do so. As you noted, that's just an obvious defense mechanism to cover for their ignorance of the subject matter.
Hilarious!
I agree. Some things can't be stressed enough.
Very much so. Consider the position put forth by @nPeace ...he belongs to a Christian denomination that expressly forbids its members from acknowledging evolution as real, the same denomination enforces that prohibition via a threat of emotional and social ruin, he attributes the scientific consensus regarding evolutionary theory to Satan, he quotes scripture in discussions of biology, and he explains that his alternative to evolution is "design by God"....This is what's really behind the "controversy". Everything else is just smoke.
You're correct and I refer you to The Clergy Letter Project and Biologos, both of which promote and advocate the position you describe.
See what I mean, @nPeace ? Now you know why I stopped replying, at times.
So let's say again that each day of creation in the Bible was hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of years. But here's something I thought of. Although there was water with life in it (fish, for example, and plant life), humans came after that. So for the "You don't know" scenario, that is if God used genes to make animals and humans and fish, I know pretty well sure that you don't remember what was going on while you were conceived or while you were first born.Prove that everything, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, wasn't just created last week. I challenge you. Tripple challenge you.
You don't know!
You have faith!
It's a religion!
You're late to the party. The talk has already been had. The answer was the scientific method.
Let God be true. Says the Bible. Notice what is written at Romans chapter 3.
Being created in the image of God, we are unlike any animals. The similarities should not fool us.
True, although you probably think you share relatives with a banana!
You admit being unable to prove your contentions about evolution itself being the sole responsible agent of life.
No science models about creation actually exist. The models that do exist about origins are wholly belief based. So I am not sure who really cares what they contradict or agree with! Got anything at all that is not belief based on topic??
Why would I ignore science?? Science is great in many ways and covers many things. Origins is just not one of them. That is religion so what you don't like is that all people will not bow down to your beliefs.
Then post it, rather than brag about the party.
It there were proof beyond philosophy for the theory of evolution (and by that I mean more proof than maybe the different branches all came from one or several unicells), I would examine it a bit more. But based on your response, you really don't expect me to believe everything you're saying, do you? I don't. And, I'm beginning to think as dad says here (if I recall correctly) that evolution is, at this point, like a religion. You either believe it, based on belief and thought of philosophical evidence, or you don't. Oh, and one more thing. However scientists do it, such as examining remains, including fossils, and concluding the DNA is like other DNA but not all of it, is not a big deal. Except that they have better microscopes, or however they look at the DNA now. Such as figuring bonobos are real close genetically speaking to humans. Would you say they are closer to humans than let's say northern Europeans are to Chinese (humans, of course), not apes.
I don't now know bro. I have known only too well, for a long time, and only too well whom those posters are, that make you go
.
I don't think anyone is harrassing me about genetics, nPeace. They have their viewpoint and trying to tell me how silly I am to believe in the Bible rather than evolution, I suppose. But I just can't accept the idea that, let's say, lions are genetically built from fish per evolution with a creative, intelligent force. And really, there's no scientific proof that it happened as taught by evolutionists. It's all up in the air. And philosphically driven. What I've seen here is the idea that Bible-based belief is for stupid people. And frankly, I used to feel the same way when I was in college and before and after. Until I became, as the song goes, a believer in God, who does not lie.I don't now know bro. I have known only too well, for a long time, and only too well whom those posters are, that make you go
@YoursTrue someone harassing you about genetics? Feel free to point them to the post here. They are ignoring it.
However, there is a lot of hard facts, in that one section. Facts evolution believers don't like to face up to.
It demonstrates that there is a lot of circular reasoning to support the theory.
It's also from scientists, and not the Bible.
Unfortunately, well actually it's not unfortunate, but I would have liked to share more on this, but I won't have that time for the next few days, but I have time to throw in just a little bit.
The claim of similarities in human-chimp DNA is exaggerated, and the truth is not given to the public - including the differences in mutations, which they claim add up to produce a change from one animal to the other.
There is a lot more I'll follow up with later, but I have to go in a few minutes.
My dear shunyadragon, if I thought you could prove your statements with valid proof, I would take it seriously in that sense. Also, as a person without credentials in the scientific realm, I must say that the explanations presented here and elsewhere are beyond my ken. And so, as far as what was said, I see nothing other than conjecture that proves evolution. Thank you for trying, though. When I say beyond my ken, I am a novice in the scientific realm of conjecture. For instance, I learned that water is H2O, 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. But then I learned that water splitting isn't so easy. A whole subject by itself.
The latter appears to be the only real basis for objection and denial of the science I witness from creationists. Coupled with a real or feigned ignorance of science, biology and theory.
